Proposal: Anyone want to actually plug the hole?
Times out and passes 5-0, with 5 unresolved DEFs. Josh
Adminned at 26 Jun 2010 05:03:07 UTC
Create a dynastic rule entitled “Expanding the tables.” with the text:
If the RNG makes a proposal with [New Weapon], [New Armor], [New Potion], or [New Monster] in the title, then that proposal is considered an Expansion Proposal.
An Expansion Proposal does not count against the RNG’s daily limit of two pending proposals, or their limit of three proposals per day, as described in rule 1.3, “Proposals”. An Expansion Proposal is not a valid proposal if it would, upon being enacted, change any gamestate other than that which is explicitly allowed in this rule. No Expansion Proposal may change more than one rule, or have more than one of [New Weapon], [New Armor], [New Potion], or [New Monster] in the title.
An Expansion Proposal with [New Weapon] in the title may specify one, and only one, weapon to be added to the table in rule 2.5.2.
An Expansion Proposal with [New Armor] in the title may specify one, and only one, armor to be added to the table in rule 2.5.3.
An Expansion Proposal with [New Potion] in the title may specify one, and only one, potion to be added to the table in rule 2.5.4.
An Expansion Proposal with [New Monster] in the title may specify one, and only one, monster to be added to the table in rule 2.4.
Throuought the ruleset, anywhere the sentence “The RNG may add X to this table as they see fit.” where X is either “weapons”, “armors”, “potions”, or “monsters”, appears, remove that sentence.
Fixing the original issue that led to the scam/not-a-scam and/or dictatorship/not-a-dictatorship.
Darknight: he/him